Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Nov 30, 2007

I have been meaning to post this for a while, but with quite a bit of other stuff going on in the nation, and the need to advise the rest of the world where it is going wrong, I put it on the backburner. Actually I just got slack, but the first explanation sounds better.

The policy was written by (I think) Terje (pronounce Ta-ya) Petersen, who is probably one of our best guys. One recent comment was; I found people much easier to bring around on board with the guns issue than I expected.

But that’s because you can sell ice to an eskimo Terje, 30 mins with you and i’m demanding my right to pack like Rambo.

Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person. It says nothing about what might be done with a gun and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

However, as with any right, there are associated responsibilities. Failure to meet these may warrant criminal penalties.

The right to own firearms is fundamental. Consequently, while it may be restricted in the case of particular individuals, within limits, it may not be removed on a collective basis. In particular, it is not a privilege to be granted or denied by governments.

In terms of genuine crime control, most gun laws are ineffective. Making gun ownership illegal does not stop gun ownership. It merely affects those gun owners who are law-abiding and least likely to use their guns in crime.

Disarming the law-abiding is irrational when the lawless cannot be disarmed.

Australians have a right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and property.

Many have relied on guns in their homes to sleep more comfortably for over two hundred years. Indeed, firearms may be the only means by which people such as women, the elderly and infirm can hope to defend themselves against rapists, robbers and murderers.

There is some evidence to show that, where gun ownership is high, crime involving actual or threatened violence is reduced. Conversely, when gun ownership is reduced, violent crime rarely changes and has been known to increase. Australia’s experience since 1996 and the UK since 1997 are clear confirmation of the latter point.

The police do not provide security in the home, business or street. They arrive after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the area, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

Only armed, law-abiding citizens can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make the community safer.

Ownership of firearms is also the only practical means by which the people can retain any semblance of ensuring that governments remain their servants and not vice versa. Although the ballot box and peaceful protest will always be the preferred means of removing unsatisfactory governments, history is full of examples where those options were denied.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” …

Or as another US President, Woodrow Wilson, put it, “Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance.”

Firearms are also legitimate sporting implements, used in a wide range of regional, national and international competitions including the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. Indeed, shooting is one of the original sports of the modern Olympic Games, commencing in 1896.

It is not legitimate to curtail the sporting activities of one group of Australians while encouraging others, simply on the grounds that their implements have the potential to be used for harmful purposes. Many sporting implements have similar potential, as do a vast array of everyday items.

Firearms can contribute to positive environmental outcomes in the hands of hunters. Hunters using firearms can be remarkably effective at reducing populations of pest animals such as foxes, pigs, goats, wild dogs and feral cats. These animals have been responsible for enormous destruction of Australian native fauna, with some small marsupial species probably extinct as a result, and pose a threat to agriculture in some areas.

Similarly, hunters contribute to positive environmental outcomes by helping to develop and preserve wetlands which concurrently accommodate species that may be hunted such as ducks, while also providing a haven for protected species.

The responsibility of those who own firearms is to only use them for non-coercive purposes or to protect themselves or others from coercion.

Those who use firearms for coercive purposes, whether actual or threatened, may have their right to own them limited or removed.

Specific firearm policies:

Sport, hunting and self-defence are all legitimate reasons for firearm ownership.

Firearm ownership should be subject to possession of a licence. However, all adults over 18 years of age have a right to a licence unless it has been removed because of a history or genuine prospect of coercion.

Those who wish to carry a concealed firearm for self-defence are entitled to be issued with a permit to do so unless they have a history or genuine prospect of coercion.

All genuine sporting uses of firearms are legitimate.

There should be no registration of long-arms.

There should be no special prohibitions on semi-automatic firearms.

Individuals and organizations have a right to establish facilities that involve the use of firearms. This includes shooting ranges and hunting reserves.

For any freedom loving political group wishing to present a moderate policy on this issue, this would be a good place to start.

A family doctor faces being struck off for daring to suggest to women seeking an abortion that they should think twice.

Dr Tammie Downes says at least eight grateful mothers have children today which they would have terminated until she asked them to consider the consequences.

But Dr Downes, 36, is now being investigated by the General Medical Council for a possible breach of ethical guidelines.

If charged and found guilty of professional misconduct, she could be removed from the medical register and forced from her job.

The GMC, which regulates doctors, is understood to have received a complaint from another doctor who claims Dr Downes is promoting her anti-abortion views to patients.

Doctors must not allow personal opinions to affect their advice.

The complaint stems from an interview Dr Downes, a GP in the West Country, gave to the Daily Mail in May in which she described how she talked to women wanting an abortion about having the baby instead.

The investigation could become a pivotal test case in the battle between pro-life campaigners such as Dr Downes and advocates of pro-choice such as the Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris - known as 'Dr Death' for his strong views on abortion and euthanasia.

There seem to be a few 'Dr Deaths', we have two in Australia. The first is Dr Jayant Patel, who is being extradited to face manslaughter charges over his efforts at Bundaberg Base Hospital. (Someone forgot to check his credentials before giving him the job.) Oh well, who said a socialized medical system was perfect. Oops.

The second is of course none other than Kevin Rudd, who gained the title for his efforts when in the Queensland public service where he successfully shut down 2200 hospital beds. Kevy has a bit of a thing about the hospital system which failed to save his father who crashed his car while drink driving.

More can be found on this on Bovination, which is a site I thoroughly recommend. The Guy 'Strawman' seems to get his cynicism just right. Try this.

This Dr Death however is a politician who strongly favores abortion and euthanasia and is determined to let nobody get in the way of his crusade. His current cause is to allow nurses to carry them out without a doctor being present.

Would anyone like to take bets on how fair an investigation into professional misconduct will be, when it is no longer a matter of whether she has in fact erred, but a matter of political correctness and policy.

Pro choice people have the same rights as everyone else in promoting their views, however in Britain it seems that there are heavy penalties including destruction of careers, for anyone who goes against that view. In other words if you are female and decide to have an abortion there, these people own you.

They are 'pro choice' but only if it is there choice. All this woman did was inform her patients and give them time to consider their choices.

Nov 24, 2007

Photo; John Howard at the polls, There were better photos but I quite like the little sweety he is cuddeling.

Well its all over, the spruikers, the how to vote people, and the voters have gone home, and the counters and scrutineers have taken over and it is now in the lap of the gods.

Last nights late news indicated that there has been a late swing to the government and that they were nearly level with the opposition, I hope they can make it.

I have my fingers crossed, for Terje Petersen, the LDP senate candidate for New South Wales who has done some really good preference swaps with other minor parties (there are heaps of them) and as result has a fairly reasonable chance if he can pull enough primary votes to be ahead when preferences are allocated.

Ironically one group, the Shooters Party refused to support us despite the fact we are the only non-single issue party that supports gun rights. The only other one to back them are the Fishing Party.

We had one of their supporters trolling our website telling us that we should disendorse one of our candidates who is gay or shooters would not vote for us. He asked me if we would sooner have a chance of winning without Shem, or loose with him. I replied that if we sacrificed our principles to win we would not deserve to do so.

I don't think many shooters would think like this so I am hoping for some drift of preferences from them.

Anyway I shall post some results later as they start to show trends. They probably won't be like this which came from a supporter: -

Early Shock Results!

LDP swept into government in a landslide!

Labor, Liberals and Greens relegated to oblivion!

LDP revises Australia’s statute law and repeals any act that bears against the liberty and property of the subject. 80 percent of laws repealed! Housing, groceries and child care suddenly become more affordable for working families! Environmental quality improves when relieved from the fat farty arse of government bureacracies! Hooray! The people cheer in the streets!

The socialists admit what a crackpot of deluded fuckwits they were all along! Free sex and poly-amory breaks out all over the place as LDP suporters are showered in kisses by beautiful young ladies without any clothes on!

Update

As I write Kevin Rudd is claiming victory over John Howard, and by a substantial margin, I thought it would be closer.

It looks like John Howard will in fact loose his seat, which owing to a redistribution was very marginal. He had the option of standing for a safer seat, but declined to do so. He tended to be a man of principle and a fighter, not always the right principles, or for the right things but he believed in what he was doing even when he was wrong.

The bad news for me was that the electorate became rather polarized and as result the minor parties proportion of the vote fell. As this is our first election and with novice candidates, we should not be disappointed but settle down and learn from it.

Nov 23, 2007

The election is not happening until tomorrow, so it is a little early for post mortems. While I tend to be an optimistic person I realize that we are the new kids on the block and I am not counting on seeing headlines in the Sunday papers saying: -

Shock Result

LDP wins 47 seats and leading in all Senate races.

At this point I would like to congratulate all candidates on their efforts, I’m proud of all of you.

The campaign has been remarkably disciplined probably due in no small part to the efforts of David L, Terje, and John H, and to the common sense of all of the other candidates.

I loved the press releases, Its a pity more of them didn’t get through, we should look at that, I’m not sure what we can do about it. Perhaps if we are lucky enough to have Terje get through this might be solved.

As a matter of interest we briefly had a Senator in the Progress Party back in the late 70s or early 80s. Someone secretly negotiated to get a WA Liberal Senator whose name escapes me now to defect on the eve of an election. It was all a done deal and John Singleton went to the airport to meet him and take him to a press conference to announce our triumph.

Unfortunately the new star recruit arrived stone motherless shitfaced drunk, and we were unable to sober him up in time for the election, never mind the press conference. It turned out that if Malcolm Fraser had known we were taking him he would have gift-wrapped him.

But I digress.

Most of the people around me were positive when I stood for Kennedy; my boss was Ron Kitching who was also one of us, although there were a few practical jokes. One morning on the way to work, I found that the night shift had spent an inordinate length of time on the way home putting up signs reading “Jim Fryar for El-Presidente.”

I don’t believe our campaign or candidates deserve any criticism, we probably could have benefited from some ‘candidate training’ and advice however we are all beginners, and the most important thing is that we share and learn from experience, and that the post mortem be positive.

For anyone who feels that they made mistakes, remember that anyone who hasn’t stuffed up hasn’t tried anything. For anyone who cops any shit, The following is for you (Borrowed from the Chatterbox Chronicles) : -

“It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly… who knows the great enthusiasms,the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Nov 22, 2007

I found the following article by James Nason in the Queensland Country Life. I thought that this was probably the ultimate in stupidity as far as legislation goes, them common sense kicked in and I realised that somewhere out there are even crazier laws, inflicted on us by even more idiotic politicians.

RURAL fencing contractor Charlie Martin couldn't believe it when he won a tender to build a fence around the Cooktown rubbish tip, but was told he couldn't proceed because he didn't have a builder's licence.

Citing "bureaucracy gone mad", Mr Martin said he had since been advised he could be fined $6000 because he had worked for several years as a full-time fencing contractor without the necessary Queensland Building Services Authority builder's licence.

Worse, he says, is that he has been forced out of business until he can get the appropriate licence, which he has been told requires him to complete courses on building sheds and layingslabs, all so he can continue his work as a rural and wire fencing contractor.

Mr Martin said he had done government work before, but this was the first time he had been advised he needed a builder's licence.

He said he has been forced to shut down his business and sack two full- time staff, and was facing an uncertain future, as debts recently accrued to buy new fencing equipment, including aDingo mini-earthmoving machine, had mounted up without any income coming in.

Despite more than 30 years' experience in rural fencing work, including more than 20 years as a former Cape York cattleman and since then as a full-time fencing contractor, Mr Martinsaid his application for a BSA licence was rejected.

He was told he required TAFE accreditation for a structural landscaping course, which included landscaping, carpentry and bricklaying.

The Queensland Building Services Authority told Queensland Country Life this week that the Queensland building Services Authority Act of 1991 required that any person who constructed a fence valued at $1100 or more required a BSA licence.

However, BSA general manager Ian Jennings said a further clause made special allowances for rural work. That clause stipulates that if a fence is constructed on agricultural or pastoral land, to be used for agricultural or pastoral purposes, and is not valued in excess of $27,500, a BSA licence is not required.

The value of a fence is considered to be the "fair commercial cost of thelabour and materials for the fence, even if the materials are supplied by the owner or the labour is done for lessthan the market rate". Queensland had the most rigorous regulatory framework of any State, Mr Jennings said. This was designed to protect consumers and keep the industry safe.

The cost of acquiring a BSA builder or trade contractor licence ranges from $439 to $964 and from $142 to $428 to maintain annually.

Mr Jennings warned that penalties would soon increase to $18,750 for an individual, and $93,750 for a company.

The authority was originally set up to “protect people from shonky builders”, however the granting of a licence does nothing to guarantee a good job. It seems that over the years they have expanded their authority, which is usual for government agencies as well as the usual increase of costs to those affected, which are passed on to the consumer.

Now they have sent their tentacles into every aspect of any kind of construction, and are probably looking for more. Fencing my house yard cost more than the minimum limit even without my labour considered, so I am a lawbreaker, but isn’t it comforting to know that the state is there to protect me from my shonky work.

After all "This was designed to protect consumers and keep the industry safe."

This is what happens when governments really believe in themselves. The premier this occurred under is Peter Beattie who is well known for his comment on the Traveston Crossing Dam; “feasible or not, we will build this dam....”

He has recently retired after doing a deal to have as a replacement his deputy Anna Blyth, in line with the old political adage, “When you retire get a replacement who is more incompetent than yourself so you look better.”

Come on the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) the only party committed to unloading this nonsense.

The LDP has called for a new system of setting speed limits that would result in some speed limits being increased so they more closely match community standards.

“Since the only way to eliminate road accidents is to eliminate cars and roads, the real issue is who ought to decide the balance between speed and road deaths – public servants or Australian drivers,” said LDP Secretary David Leyonhjelm.

The LDP believes the setting speed limits in Australia is a classic example of nanny-state thinking, with bureaucrats making decisions on behalf of the rest of the community.

“The government should not be setting speed limits on a “we know best” basis,” said Mr Leyonhjelm.

“Drivers are all adults and can make their own choices. If most drivers exceed the speed limit, the limit should be raised. It’s not for the government to tell everyone they are wrong.

“This is not about letting hoons race past schools at high speed. It’s about ensuring the government is our servant, not our master.

“There is an internationally recognised method of matching speed limits to community values via the 85th percentile rule. The Australian Transport Council’s National Road Safety Strategy acknowledges this method, but quite blatantly imposes its own version of acceptable risk instead,” he said.

Traffic engineers observe that the majority of drivers drive in a safe and reasonable manner in the absence of speed limits, with the safest vehicles travelling at or below the 85th to 90th percentiles. Vehicles travelling over the 85th percentile (or faster than the flow of traffic) have a significantly higher crash risk than vehicles travelling around or modestly below this speed.

Law enforcement measures can be directed at this 15 percent, increasing the law’s legitimacy to drivers and avoiding perceptions of revenue-raising.

The LDP’s policy calls for the setting of speed limits at, or slightly above, the 85th percentile. It anticipates this would result in an increase of 10-30 km/h in the limit on roads where drivers felt it was safe to drive at such speeds, while perhaps leading to reductions on less safe roads.

Nov 20, 2007

Photo; LDP stand at Brisbane gun show, note the sign - Gun Control, its not about guns, its about control - really says it all.

I have mentioned the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) on a number of occasions and believe that they probably have presented one of the most positive images in the current election campaign. I really like the following: -

The LDP is the only political party in Australia that supports the right to vote.

“Every other party believes voting is an obligation. Every other political party wants to take away your right to choose and force you to vote,” insisted John Humphreys, Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

“If the government forces us to do something, it is not a right. Nobody refers to the ‘right to pay tax’ or the ‘right to obey the law’. These things are requirements. But voting in a free society should not be a legally enforced obligation, it should be a right. That is the LDP position.“Compulsory voting takes away choice and also undermines our democracy.

The tone has that common sense, no argument, this is right aspect to it. This is the tone of people who intend to just get on with it. Below are a few Quotes from press releases that I quite like.

"The federal government is carrying on like a great big poker machine. We put in our taxes week in, week out and every few years we hope to hit the jackpot and all this gold might come tumbling our way. And just like a poker machine we all lose over the long haul. The only real difference is that you have a choice about whether you put your money into a real poker machine but you don't have any choice when it comes to filling the government coffers with cash" said Terje Petersen of the LDP.

The Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP) today called for the removal of legislation banning a nuclear power industry within Australia.

LDP candidate for the House of Representatives seat of Page, Benj Beatty, said, “For too many years now, successive Governments have unnecessarily interfered with the power generation industry, resulting in the grossly distorted energy market we are lumbered with today.”

“It’s time to let the Australian people actually make the decision on nuclear power, by removing legislative blocks and allowing a properly functioning market to return.”

The Greens support high taxes and merely disagree with Liberal and Labor about how the money should be spent. It's a lot different. “Every other political party has an unhealthy interest in our sex lives. The LDP is committed to getting John Howard and Kevin Rudd out of our bedrooms,” claims John Humphreys, the Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

“The major parties have caused the so-called ‘housing crisis’ and now they are promising to waste more taxpayers' money trying to fix it," claimed John Humphreys, Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

"The solution is actually very simple. The government needs to get out of the way," he said.

“High house prices are caused by the government holding down supply through high taxes and overly strict planning laws. If the government simply got out of the way there would be significantly more supply and that would put downward pressure on house prices.

“This is very simple economics and a very simple solution. But sometimes the simple solutions are the best.

“All the major parties want you to be scared of global warming so that they can sell their snake-oil solution. The LDP doesn’t believe in basing policy on fear campaigns and would prefer Australia to take a more calculated approach to climate change policy,” said John Humphreys, Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

“Fear is the life blood of governments. Nothing builds public support for government programs more effectively than the idea that life is not safe.

“The usefulness of fear has been well understood by politicians for a long time. We fear second hand smoke, so we give up the rights of private property owners to make their own rules. The fear of head injuries was used to make bicycle helmets compulsory. The fear of guns led to excessively strict gun laws. The fear of terrorism was used to justify the authoritarian ASIO Act.

“And now we have the new grand fear campaign: the fear of carbon," Mr Humphreys said.

“The Greens have called for a ban on fast food advertising to protect the health of our children. If banning things really was the answer to our problems then we would be better off banning the Greens,” said John Humphreys, Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

“Banning things is not the solution. The LDP does not believe in censorship or government control over advertising and we absolutely support free speech in all its forms.

“The Greens advocate policies that would harm millions of Australians, create unemployment and lower incomes. But we would never seriously call for them to be banned. Perhaps their policies should come with a health warning, but in a free country people should be free to say whatever they like, even if it is wrong, rude or stupid.

Nov 18, 2007

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on voters to put the Greens and the ALP last on their ballot papers, with most government candidates just above them.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that he had listened with alarm and disbelief to the increasingly hysterical statements from the Greens and their copy cats in the opposition and the government.

“The Greens would like a carbon free world. We hope they volunteer themselves first in this suicidal ambition.

“Carbon is the essence of life and carbon dioxide is the gas which recycles the essence of life. These carbon killers would have us bury the gas of life in carbon cemeteries.

“However, despite the increasingly lurid horror stories being concocted regularly by the IPCC, it remains a fact that there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is the key driver of world temperature.

“As a sacrifice to the Greenhouse religion, the ALP has just announced a silly, costly and unnecessary scheme to dictate the share of future energy supplies coming from so-called “alternative energy”.

“Alternative energy has always played a useful part in Australia’s energy mix, and the booming prices for oil, coal and uranium will ensure that this process accelerates.

“Alternative energy was not discovered by Bob Brown.

“Kangaroos running on grass power provided most of the energy needs for the aboriginal people for thousands of years. Then wind power, pushing the sailing clippers, brought the first Europeans to Australia and provided the first transport for our world trade. Cobb and Co coaches used horses running on hay and grain energy to create a huge land transport network in Australia. This provided a mail and passenger service better than the Government railways provide today. Then in the hungry thirties, rabbits and jumbucks running on grass power provided energy for many a swagman. Even today, millions of windmills, wood stoves, camp ovens and solar hot water systems are providing decentralised energy to outback Australia, and hydro-electricity still powers many city homes.

“However, to advocate the closing of all coal power stations (Greens) or just 20% of them by 2020 (ALP), is just too silly for words, and could only be done at great cost to every Australian consumer.

“Nature has already taken out Victoria’s biggest power station at Yallourn, and the Greens have invaded and called for closure of the huge Munmorah Power Station in NSW. If the drought causes any more cutbacks in Queensland’s generating capacity, we may soon experience a carbon free future as the power grid fails during the next heat wave. Or suburbia may find how little energy comes from solar panels and windmills on a freezing, still winter night.

“Carbon Sense is also opposed to the silly and unnecessary carbon caps and emission trading dreams of the Government, but of all the policies designed to prevent the sky from falling, this is the least silly. It will at least minimise the cost of killing carbon.

“It seems that only a few mavericks on the government side in parliament and some minor party and independent candidates are game to brave the abuse they would receive if they questioned the Greenhouse religion.

“We recommend that voters use the power of preferential voting to rank every one of them. Number every square. Put anyone who defends the gas of life first and the carbon killers last.”

Disclosure of Interest:Viv Forbes earns income from three carbon emitting industries - coal, cattle and sheep. He nurtures native grasslands. He hates frosts, droughts and starving stock. He also uses cement, steel and electricity, buys diesel for his tractor, petrol for his car and gas for his barby. He uses trains and occasionally boards an aeroplane. He eats carbon based foods, pays taxes and uses government services funded by taxes on the carbon industries. All of these industries and services will be harmed by carbon taxes, emissions trading or carbon sequestration. He is also a scientist, investment analyst, computer modeller and political analyst. Like the great majority of Australians, he has a big vested interest in the outcome of this historic debate.

Nov 16, 2007

In the 80s the Western Australian government formed what it called a partnership with business, which was known popularly as WA Inc. The principle if you are broad minded enough to call it that was that the government would help business to develop and grow.

The way it worked was that in return for contributions to the Labor party business would receive preferential treatment from them. It was all very honourable, once the government was bought they stayed bought. A company could make a contribution then pick up a state asset at concessional prices.

Want a mining lease, that’ll be…. Want planning approval, that’ll be…. Want to get a state property cheap, that’ll be…. and so on.

I was reminded of this when I followed up a comment by Stephen R Maloney, who wrote: - I believe every conservative in America will want to support the candidacy of Lt. Col. William Russell (USA, Ret) who is running hard against John Murtha. Russell is a veteran of Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. Please visit his web site to find out how you can help -- even if you don't live in PA.

Wow, John Murtha, well what do you say? On following up I found the same sort of guy who would have felt quite at home in WA back then. The following is a selection of what I found, mainly on Stephens site.UPMC contributed more than $110,000 to John Murtha's last campaign, an obscene amount. Presumably, it's planning to do the same in 2008, but it won't do so with impunity. In 2006, the money for Murtha came from UPMC's Political Action Committee, as well as from wealthy administrators

Why does UPMC shower money on Murtha? Because he has "earmarked" directed hundreds of millions of dollars to the heath system. Did he do so to keep UPMC afloat? Hardly! In the last fiscal year this supposed "nonprofit" organization declared a "surplus" (i.e., profit) of $480 million.

You can see the companies that financed Murtha's last campaign by going to http://opensecrets.org/, typing in the name "Murtha" and looking up details on his "top contributors." It's not a pretty sight.

If you'll look at Murtha's top contributors, you'll find one after another who has been the recipient of untold millions in federal dollars. The way the system works is this: Murtha earmarks them with tens of millions -- or more -- and they provide him tens of thousands in campaign contributions -- or more. It's a profoundly dirty system, but it's the way John Murtha "does business."

So, who is the challenger? Lt. Col. William Russell (USA, Ret) veteran of Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and the Balkans Conflict. In his military career he has served six tours in war zones including Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Balkans. These tours include almost three years in the Middle East (Iraq and Saudi Arabia) and a year and a half in the Balkans (Hungary, Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia). His wife, Kasia, who was pregnant with their son at the time, and he were in the Pentagon on 9/11. Fortunately both survived.

From his site we find the following: - Pennsylvania has been the turning point in many of the great events that have determined our nation’s future as well as its character. These turning points include the founding of our nation with the signing of the Declaration of Independence to establish the political entity of our nation, followed by the Continental Army’s long winter at Valley Forge and its crossing of the Delaware to capture Trenton on the long road to military victory.

The Constitutional Convention defined the structure of this nation, the Battle of Gettysburg determined that such a nation could long endure, and Lincoln’s address there clearly defined the purpose of that most difficult of this nation’s struggles.

The passengers of Flight 93 turned the tide of battle on September 11 over the skies of this great state and diverted what would have been the most devastating of the blows to this nation. In this war against Islamic Radicalism, the political battle of the 2008 election in the Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District is a critical turning point of this war.

Win or loose, the Republican party should keep this guy deep in their hearts, he is what you need and there will always be a place for him where you need a man of principle.

Nov 11, 2007

The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month is the time when many people here and elsewhere stop what they are doing and observe a minutes silence for the fallen in wars.

We have sent many soldiers overseas, some prior to federation and of course lost many of them.

As a tribute to ours, I am posting some references to Australian troops from various people, most of which I have found at "Convict Creations".

General Monash;

"not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline"

Australian attitudes to the English

" They had been taught by their parents, or had otherwise acquired, a strong dislike of the speech, manners and attitudes of the higher British classes. It was possibly the latter's nonchalant sense of superiority, combined with a lack of sensitivity to the suffering of the troops, that infuriated the ANZACS most. "

" The road is a continuous stream of detached parties of Tommies .. who have become 'lost. stolen, or strayed'... Seems to me that whole damn lot are more intent on getting back than getting up. They'll make a good advance guard - for the civilian retreat. "

·English assessment of the Diggers

"But Churchill was unequivocal on this subject - he told his physician Lord Moran that Australians were of "poor stock". Presumably he was referring to the so-called convict stain."

"The Australians rose to the occasion. Not waiting for orders, or for the boats to reach the beach, they sprang into the sea....Then this race of athletes proceeded to scale the cliffs."

"In the later stages of the last war, the Australian Corps was by general recognition perhaps the most effectively operated of any; it certainly played a leading role in our victorious offensive."

Captured German officer:

" I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France and Belgium once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry keeps fighting"

When Morshead Took Command of the Australians in North Africa, Lord Haw Haw the british traitor doing propaganda for the Germans referred to them as "Ali Baba Morshead and his 40,000 thieves".

This was adapted to 20,000 thieves to refer to the 9th division, when they were called back from Syria to stiffen things up after the retreat from Benghazi (known to Australians as the "Benghazi handicap")

An anonymous poem was written at the time about that: -

Jerry had us on the run, the news was far from hot,He had his feet in Egypt and the Sphinx was on the spot,So Auchinleck despondent sent signals out in sheaves,To Ali Baba Morshead and his twenty thousand thieves.

So Leslie called his officers and whispered in their ears,And his message went to Auchy "Have a pot and drown your fears.We'll make that bloody Rommel think he's got the desert heaves,Will Ali Baba Moorshead and his twenty thousand thieves.

"So we traveled down from Syria by tank and truck and car,Leaving Tel Aviv and Haifa and pleasant towns afar.Both Cairo and Alex were left behind to grieveLosing Ali Baba Moorshead and his twenty thousand thieves.

So we came back up the desert, well known from days of yore,And stopped the foe at Alamein close by the Meddy shore.The Eyeties were pathetic, the Huns fell back like leavesFrom Ali Baba Moorshead and his twenty thousand thieves.

Now Rommel's got a headache, his tanks can't take a trick,His Afrik' Corps are not so hot, his air force makes us sick;His dreams of looting Egypt are ditched and he is peevedWith Ali Baba Moorshead and his twenty thousand thieves,

We have Kittyhawks and Hurricanes and bombers by the score,Dropping loads on Jerry's bases, rushing back for more.And it's sure that Rommel's stonkered, whatever plans he weaves'Gainst Ali Baba Moorshead and his twenty thousand thieves.

Nov 9, 2007

Just what kind of show are the UN running when they give an optimistic assessment of the chances for a resolution to the problems in Burma when the envoy they sent was treated with disdain by the ruling junta?

The only commitment received by them was from Burma’s pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi who stated that she is "ready to cooperate" with the government and is committed to pursuing a dialogue with the ruling junta. “It is my duty to give constant and serious considerations to the interests and opinions of as broad a range of political organizations and forces as possible”.

She has been under house arrest for the best part of twenty years for having the gaul to win an election.

In a small concession on Friday Suu Kyi was able to meet with three executive members of her National League for Democracy and a party spokesman -- the first time they have met in more than three years.

Members of her party said Suu Kyi was " optimistic" about prospects of the process for reconciliation.

Around 110 people are believed to have been killed, in violence by the government stemming from protests against massive hikes in the price of fuel, including 40 Buddhist monks. Video smuggled out of the country showed unarmed protesters being beaten by the military regime's security forces, and one man thought to be a Japanese journalist, was shot and killed at close range.

Burma’s military junta admitted that it had detained more than 2,900 people during the crackdown, (they claimed that only ten were killed). Many of them are still believed to be in Jail.

Among the notable non-successes of the trip by the UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari are the following: -

The military junta has rejected proposed three-party talks that would have included pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

A proposed meeting with the country's most powerful figure -- junta chief Senior Gen. Than Shwe was rejected.

Kyaw Hsan got on his high horse and told Ganbari: "I would like you to know that Myanmar is a small nation and if a big power bullies her ... we will have no other way but to face this and endure."

On Friday, the day before Gambari's arrival, the junta announced it would expel the top U.N. official in the country, resident coordinator Charles Petrie.

The UN would see positives in being beaten around the head with a dead and stinking fish if this is good news.

Nov 6, 2007

Picture Fred Nile attempts to prevent deal between Family First and the LDP.

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. – Jacob Hornberger (1995)

Politics gets just plain silly at times especially when religion gets involved, and worse when one party feels that another owes it because of belief. The proverbial has hit the fan over here because of a preference deal between the Family First Party (a Christian backed party) and the Liberty and Democracy Party.

Fred Nile, who heads the Christian Democratic Party, appears to be mad as a cut snake about it as the following extract from today’s press indicates: -

The Senate bombshell has shocked religious crusader Fred Nile, who accused Family First of giving preferences to "the enemy" - the Liberty and Democracy Party.

LDP, which stands little chance of winning a Senate spot, advocates a radical suite of policies and a minimal role for government.

"Say no to the nanny state," its election banner says.

Its preference deal with Family First has shocked long-term political observers, who believe the pro-Christian party could suffer a voter backlash.

Family First Senator Steve Fielding, who was elected in 2004 with the backing of church groups, now stands accused of supping with the devil.

Family First has decided to preference LDP ahead of the major parties and the Christian Democratic Party in both NSW and Western Australia.

Last night, Senator Fielding defended the preference swap with LDP, who he said had some policies in common with Family First.

But Reverend Nile, who is CDP's national president and a long-time advocate of conservative social values, said he was "shocked and disappointed" by Family First's decision.

"They didn't keep their word. They gave their preferences to the enemy, the anti-Christian party," said Reverend Nile, a member of the NSW Parliament.

I tend to disagree with the concept of religious parties whether they are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, or anything else, on the principle that while people should be free to advocate their religious views to any willing listener and should be free to take part in the political process, they are not justified in legislating religious values into law.

A religious party has by definition, the intention of doing just that.

The Views on religion of the LDP is best summed up by our New South Wales Senate candidate Terje Petersen in his press release on the above issue: -

The LDP today moved to defend its preference deal with Family First in response to claims by the Christian Democrats that it is an "anti-Christian" party.

"Many members of our party are committed Christians. Our Victorian Senate candidate, Steve Clancy, is a practising Christian and obvious proof that we are not anti-Christian.

"However, the LDP is opposed to the nanny state that some people promote under the guise of Christianity. It is not opposed to personal responsibility and does not endorse risky behaviour, but it also does not support using the law to impose the moral values of a section of the community on everyone.

Small groups of zealots can achieve their goals in a tight Senate by using the mutual grooming political process, in which they will agree to pass something they can live with (say compulsory Identity cards) in exchange for something they want passed (say banning Sunday shopping or bikinis). This process is often referred to as “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours".

Thus they can tend to double up on anti-freedom nanny state acts of legislation, which is of course something any government will approve of.

Still it’s a great thing to see press articles of this type, you can’t buy publicity like this.

Nov 5, 2007

With election on the way, most parties wish to buy votes by offering to splurge our money on all sorts of 'largesse' and we need to get policy out there, so I have decided to publish the Liberty and Democracy Party policy on taxation: -

Much has been said about the need for tax and welfare reform in Australia, but the tyranny of the status quo and self-imposed limitations such as 'budget neutrality' and no 'person-worse-off' relegate any usual reform proposal to failure.

Consequently, the LDP does not argue for incremental reform. Instead it offers a new template from which to consider tax and welfare issues, a tax revolution: Reform 30/30.

Reform 30/30 includes a tax-free threshold of $30,000 and a flat income tax of 30%, with no deductions. All income taxes (company, Capital Gains Tax [CGT], Pay As You Go [PAYG], Fringe Benefits Tax [FBT]) would be equal at 30%, and the Medicare levy removed.

The tax-free threshold (TFT) would be increased to $30,000 per person and all tax expenditures (tax deductions, offsets, and so on) would be removed.

The current welfare system would be replaced by a sliding scale of payments (called a Negative Income Tax or NIT) that phased out at 30% and finished at an income of $30,000.

For example, if you earned $0, you would receive 30% of $30,000 ($9000). If you earned $10,000, you would receive 30% of $20,000 ($6000). If you earn $25,000, you would receive 30% of $5000 ($1500). This would involve a cut in payments to the unemployed and an increase in payments to low-income earners.

One advantage of the NIT is that it removes the need for the minimum wage. Instead of legislating for higher wages, the NIT allows wages to stay at their market rate and instead supplements low incomes with an NIT payment. Removing the minimum wage would result in a significant increase in the number of jobs available.

Probably the biggest advantage of Reform 30/30 is that the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) is always 30%. The EMTR measures how much of an additional dollar earned goes to the government. Under the current system the EMTR is variable and high. One cause of high EMTRs for people on low-incomes is the overlap of paying income tax and losing welfare payments. This can lead to EMTRs of up to 80% on some of the poorest people in Australia and is called the "poverty trap", and is a major disincentive against getting a job.

The combination of lower unemployment payments, more jobs available and greater rewards for getting a job would lead to a significant increase in employment, and the social capital benefits that go with that (higher self-esteem, more opportunities, greater social participation). Absolute poverty would be reduced and economic growth would increase.

Another important benefit from Reform 30/30 is the administrative simplicity. By having a flat tax at the same level as company tax, and removing all tax expenditures (except those necessary to retain the integrity of the income tax system), it would no longer be necessary to complete a tax return. One problem of the current system is the churning of welfare -- where the same person both pays income tax and receives welfare. Under our proposal this would be abolished.

There would be no question of tax avoidance, no need for complex accounting procedures and no costly administration and compliance costs. The biggest losers from Reform 30/30 would be tax accountants -- which is surely a sign of good tax reform.

The proposal includes a significant reduction in income tax. This is appropriate as Australians currently pay too much tax -- more than any previous Australian generation. Still, a reduction in tax must be met with a reduction in spending. Some elements of Reform 30/30 will work to offset the lost revenue -- such as less unemployment, lower welfare payments, higher economic growth, less tax avoidance, the removal of middle-class welfare and lower administration costs. In addition, the removal of tax expenditures will save the government $30 billion and remove hundreds of inefficient distortions (which will in turn lead to higher economic growth).

Finally, no reform of the tax and welfare system would be complete without also removing the billions of dollars currently paid to industry as corporate welfare.

Reform 30/30 is unambiguously beneficial to the economy. It offers 500,000 new jobs, less poverty, a $90 billion bigger economy, higher growth rates, lower tax levels and a simpler, fairer tax/welfare system and more money in the budget. The price is that some sacred cows of politics ('progressive' tax, minimum wage, no-person-worse-off) will have to be sacrificed.

Issues of equity will always be contentious, but Reform 30/30 is more equitable than the status quo for several reasons. First, it massively reduces unemployment and poverty. Second, it ends discrimination against couples. Third, it ends discrimination against risky business and inconsistent income.

Finally, this reform will actually pay for itself. Rough estimates suggest a medium-term impact on the budget of +$15 billion per year, and more in the long run.

Full details on this reform policy are contained in Reform 30/30: Rebuilding Australia's Tax and Welfare Systems by John Humphreys.

Nov 4, 2007

It was great to find this story of encouraging signs from Iraq in “News.com.au" by Andrew Bolt. At this stage it is probably a little on the optimistic side, and we still need a lot of things to go right for us, but yes things are looking up.

THERE is a reason Iraq has almost disappeared as an election issue.

Here it is: The battle is actually over. Iraq has been won.

I know this will seem to many of you an insane claim. Ridiculous! After all, haven't you read countless stories that Iraq is a "disaster", turned by a "civil war" into a "killing field"?

Didn't Labor leader Kevin Rudd, in one of his few campaign references to Iraq, say it was the "greatest ... national security policy disaster that our country has seen since Vietnam"?

Yep, that’s our Kevy, always the optimist about our foreign policy. With the nation in election mode of course he’s just the guy to go to for a balanced view. When the war started to drag on and become a negative issue Labor hitched its wagon firmly to the ‘lets get out as fast as possible’ horse, with the result that any positive news is a disaster for them.

In what he refers to as the latest underreported news he goes on to say: -

Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October - the lowest monthly figure since March last year. (This is a provisional figure and may alter over the next week.)

The number of Iraqi civilians killed last month - mostly by Islamist and fascist terrorists - was around 760, according to Iraqi Government sources.

That is still tragically high, but the monthly toll has plummeted since January's grim total of 1990. What measures of success do critics of Iraq's liberation now demand?

Violence is falling fast. Al Qaida has been crippled. The Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs no longer face genocide. What's more, the country has stayed unified. The majority now rules.

Despite that, minority Sunni leaders are co-operating in government with Shiite ones. There is no civil war. The Kurds have not broken away. Iran has not turned Iraq into its puppet.

And the country's institutions are getting stronger. The Iraqi army is now at full strength, at least in numbers.

The country has a vigorous media. A democratic constitution has been adopted and backed by a popular vote.

Well, that sounds promising, unless you are a politician firmly rooted into a position against the war, in which case it is the last thing you would wish to hear, but wait, there’s more.

Al-Qaida's media arm last week released a video on the internet in which bin Laden - or a man masquerading as him - revealed how disastrously his war against democracy in Iraq was going.

He called for intensified fighting against the Americans and pleaded for Muslims in the region to come help.

Bin Laden even let slip how badly al-Qaida has been mauled by the Sunni sheiks who have stopped fighting the US troops and turned on bin Laden's killers instead, by pleading for "unity" from the Sunnis and admitting "mistakes" had been made.

To talk like this will, I know, choke many critics of the war with fury. How angry so many are to hear good news from Iraq. And how suspicious is their reaction. Don't we all actually wish for Iraq to be democratic, safe and free from tyranny? But, they'll splutter, but, but, but... I can hear them already.

But the bloodshed in Iraq is terrible! Call that victory?

And, yes, the killings are ghastly. Iraq is nowhere near safe, and our help is still needed to make it so. Yet the violence now does not threaten the country or its government.

But if Iraq is "won", why are so many Iraqis still dying?

Because some of the killers are just criminals, or are trying to kill their way to a piece of the action, or are - inevitably after so much cruelty and oppression - settling scores. Others are agents of Iran, which wants to make America pay and Iraq obey.

And more - and the worst - are fanatics who just want to kill for their creed, and are killing Iraqis as they are killing Pakistanis, Algerians, Egyptians, Israelis and anyone else in the way of their jihad. Iraq remains an ugly place, with lethal hatreds, yet none of these killers are winning and Iraq will not fall to them.

Consider: Iraq's official estimate of civilian deaths from violence is now about 25 a day. In South Africa, with twice the population, the official murder toll is 52 a day. That's a rate of killing equal to Iraq's.

Do you think those murders will topple South Africa?

The Labor Party has placed itself in the same position as the Democrats in the USA, who are in the main in frantic denial of any improvement. They really need to see more body bags arriving home, but they are doing something about it.

The attempt by the Democrat majority in Congress to censure Turkey, a key ally, over the 1915-1923 massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire by labeling it a genocide by the Turks has caused tensions.

Had they been able to pass this resolution they may have managed to block one of the main supply routes for troops fighting there. Any such action would bring an immediate offensive by the enemy, and the Democrats would have their version of the right sort of news to point to.

Nov 2, 2007

In the current Federal election here the Labor Party are trying to avoid controversy while ahead in the polls by claiming every time the Liberal party presents a good policy that they would do that too, to the point that the whole thing is being called the "Me too election".

The idea seems to be to present us with a choice between 'Tweedledums and Tweedeldumses" while hoping that people want to change. At last count Labor were up to around 23 me toos.

However all is not lost as one of their front benchers, environment spokesman, former rock star, and legend in his own mind, Peter Garrett in a fit of either honesty or crass stupidity has admitted that this will not be the case.

PETER Garrett has reportedly told a journalist that Labor would change its policies once in power.

"Once we get in we'll just change it all," Mr Garrett said to high-profile radio announcer Steve Price.

The accident-prone ALP environment spokesman made the gaffe of the election campaign of a proportion that may have major impact on Labor's chance of snaring power federally.

In a statement issued late today, Mr Garrett did not deny the quote but indicated he may have been taken out of context.

"One of Kevin Rudd's senior frontbenchers, in an impromptu but nevertheless on-the-record discussion with me, face to face this morning, said that the 'me too' tag will not matter if Labor wins the election because, quote, 'once we get in we'll just change it all'," Mr Price told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

"The frontbencher is Peter Garrett."

Price said Mr Garrett had already had a pretty ordinary week after being forced to backtrack on comments about climate change and the Kyoto protocol.

But he said his comments were an insight into what voters could be in for under Labor.

"But Peter Garrett, this morning, by admitting to me that Labor is already thinking of, in his words, 'changing it all when we get in', well, that's going to leave a fairly hefty level of suspicion I would have thought among voters on what they're really voting for."